Data Scraping, Bots and First Amendment Rights

by | Oct 11, 2017

By Linda Henry

See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below

View Patrick Law Group, LLC

A recent case involving a small workforce analytics startup fighting for its right to extract data from the largest professional networking site on the Internet may set a precedent for applying constitutional principles to social medial platforms.  hiQ Labs, Inc., the company seeking to protect its right to scrape publicly available data from LinkedIn, maintains that social media platforms should be treated as a public forum, and consequently, hiQ’s data scraping activities are protected by the First Amendment.

Data scraping has come a long way since its early days, which involved manually copying data visible on a website.  Today, data scraping is a thriving industry, and high performance web scraping tools allow individuals and businesses to take advantage of the massive amount of data available on the Internet by collecting specific data from targeted websites.  Many companies are increasingly reliant on big data as an important part of their business strategy and now view data scraping as a business necessity.

Just as data extraction methods have evolved, so have the legal theories used to either defend or challenge data scraping activities.  In one of the earliest cases challenging unwanted data scraping, eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., eBay successfully used a trespass to chattels theory to obtain a preliminary injunction against an auction aggregator that was compiling a database of eBay’s auction listings by extracting data from eBay’s site.   Other legal theories currently used in cases involving data scraping include claims alleging breach of contract, violation of terms of use, copyright infringement, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), unfair competition, and now, in HiQ Labs Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., violation of a company’s constitutional rights.

The saga began in May 2017, when LinkedIn delivered a cease-and-desist letter to hiQ, warning hiQ that it was violating LinkedIn’s terms of use as both a user and an advertiser by using bots to scrape data from LinkedIn users’ public profiles.  LinkedIn threatened to bring an action against hiQ under the CFAA and also advised that LinkedIn would be taking measures to block hiQ’s bots from scraping data on LinkedIn’s site.

hiQ responded by filing suit against LinkedIn, alleging that by blocking hiQ’s bots, LinkedIn sought to gain a competitive advantage through unlawful and unfair business practices and also violated the free speech clause of the California Constitution.  hiQ maintained that because LinkedIn is a public forum, hiQ had a free speech right “to access that marketplace on equal terms with all other people and that LinkedIn’s private property rights in controlling access to its computers cannot take precedence.”

In its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, hiQ reminded the U.S. District Court that the California Supreme Court had clearly interpreted the free speech rights guaranteed by the California Constitution as precluding an owner of private property from prohibiting access if the property constitutes a public forum. hiQ argued that because the United States Supreme Court upheld this California constitutional right, LinkedIn cannot promise a public forum and public access, but then selectively exclude members of the public from such forum.

During oral arguments, hiQ argued that that social media sites such as LinkedIn are the modern equivalent of the town square, and that allowing LinkedIn to choose who can access the site is a violation of the First Amendment and will have grave constitutional consequences.  In response, LinkedIn drew an analogy between books at a public library and the publicly available information on LinkedIn.  LinkedIn argued that just as a public library conditions access to its books on compliance with certain library policies, LinkedIn conditions access to LinkedIn’s website on its privacy policies and terms of service.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen granted the preliminary injunction requested by hiQ, and ordered LinkedIn to remove any technology within 24 hours that would prevent hiQ from accessing information on public profiles.  Judge Chen found that because authorization is not necessary to access publicly available profile pages, LinkedIn was not likely to prevail on its CFAA claim.  In addition, “hiQ has raised serious questions as to whether LinkedIn, in blocking hiQ’s access to public data, possibly as a means of limiting competition, violates state law,” Judge Chen wrote.  Although the court did not hold that publicly available websites should constitute a public form, the court clearly limited its decision on the free speech claim to the preliminary injunction.  LinkedIn has since filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, requesting that the court vacate the preliminary injunction.

The current legal battle between LinkedIn and hiQ could have wide implications on the future of data scraping, data ownership and the control of publicly available information that users post on social media sites.  Should, as hiQ argued, private social media platforms be treated as a public forum? Or, should social media sites have the right to limit access to publicly available information? And, do individuals that post information to social media sites agree that they are essentially making data available in a public square? As Judge Chen noted at the conclusion of oral arguments, “I’ve got a feeling it’s not going to end here.”


Good, Bad or Ugly? Implementation of Ethical Standards In the Age of AI

By Dawn Ingley See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below With the explosion of artificial intelligence (AI) implementations, several technology organizations have established AI ethics teams to ensure that their respective and myriad uses across...

IoT Device Companies: The FTC is Monitoring Your COPPA Data Deletion Duties and More

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) activities with respect to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) demonstrate a continued interest in, and increased scrutiny of,...

Predictive Algorithms in Sentencing: Are We Automating Bias?

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Although algorithms are often presumed to be objective and unbiased, recent investigations into algorithms used in the criminal justice system to predict recidivism have produced compelling...

My Car Made Me Do It: Tales from a Telematics Trial

By Dawn Ingley See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below Recently, my automobile insurance company gauged my interest in saving up to 20% on insurance premiums.  The catch?  For three months, I would be required to install a plug-in monitor that...

When Data Scraping and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Collide

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below As the volume of data available on the internet continues to increase at an extraordinary pace, it is no surprise that many companies are eager to harvest publicly available data for their own use...

Is Your Bug Bounty Program Uber Risky?

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below In October 2016, Uber discovered that the personal contact information of some 57 million Uber customers and drivers, as well as the driver’s license numbers of over 600,000 United States...

IoT Device Companies: COPPA Lessons Learned from VTech’s FTC Settlement

By Jennifer Thompson See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below In “IoT Device Companies:  Add COPPA to Your "To Do" Lists,” I summarized the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s June, 2017 guidance that IoT companies selling devices used by children will be...

Beware of the Man-in-the-Middle: Lessons from the FTC’s Lenovo Settlement

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below The Federal Trade Commission’s recent approval of a final settlement with Lenovo (United States) Inc., one of the world’s largest computer manufacturers, offers a reminder that when it comes to...

#TheFTCisWatchingYou: Influencers, Hashtags and Disclosures 2017 Year End Review

Influencer marketing, hashtags and proper disclosures were the hot button topic for the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) in 2017, so let’s take a look at just how the FTC has influenced Social Media Influencer Marketing in 2017. First, following up on the more...

Part III of III | FTC Provides Guidance on Reasonable Data Security Practices

By Linda Henry See all of Our JDSupra Posts by Clicking the Badge Below This is the third in a series of three articles on the FTC’s Stick with Security blog. Part I and Part II of this series can be found here and here. Over the past 15 years, the Federal Trade...